Electronic Ignition Problems

In the interest of safety, would you be willing to share your difficulties with all brands of electronic ignition?

Good thread idea!

Good safety thread for those of us who have yet to choose our ignition John.

Mags vs EI

I'm still looking too. Lasar is my first choice, because it has less authority on advance angle, and more units in the field. I did really enjoy my conversation with Brad, and am not ruling out one p-mag.

I have never heard of such harrowing events with magnetos. Sure, lots of bad mag checks, usually the result fouled plugs, but never these kinds of issues. Ferried once on one mag (bad judgement) to maintenance base, but two mags have never let me down in about 4000 hrs of SEL time.

I like Lasar too. It's my second choice behind FADEC, but I'm not sure I want to pony up the dough for the premium to get in to the club. Not sure yet if I want fuel injection either...

Yukon said:

In the interest of safety, would you be willing to share your difficulties with all brands of electronic ignition?

Click to expand...

I have had just one difficulty early on with my Lightspeed Plasma II, and it was 100% my own fault. My coils, which are mounted to my engine case, didn't have enough strain relief on the wires that run to the "brain" box. One wire managed to break -- partially, causing the coil to run intermittent. It checked out fine on the ground but in flight it wasn't firing reliably. Again, MY OWN FAULT because I didn't wire it properly. The unit itself ran flawlessly once this was worked out.

1200 hours on this Lightspeed Plasma II + Slick combo. Other than my bad wiring, it has run wonderfully. I run LOP at all sorts of throttle/RPM settings and it's very smooth, very strong, and the fuel economy kicks butt.

FWIW, I have flywheel magnets and fixed crank position sensor.

Dan brings up a really good point. In our industry, we find over 99% of "problems" involve customer wiring which of course has nothing to do with the units themselves. Also, Hall Effect triggers are far more reliable than magnetic pickups in my experience.

LightSpeed

I have a 9A with a O-320 D3G, with DUAL lightspeed ignition. When I first built our plane and with talking with Klaus at lightspeed I connected my dual units to the Aux output of a Control Vision EXPBUS II. We had about 140hrs on our plane and started having problems with the ignition cutting out. After talking again with Klaus, he said he no longer wanted the ign. feed from the expbus, he said the solid state "fuses" did not hold up to his ignition system. I changed the wiring to feed the ignition straight from our dual batteries(one for each ign.)via a CB(I still use the expbus aux output switchs to turn the ign on-off). The problem want away, we now have another 120hrs on our 9A with out any more problems.

Rotax CDI Experiences

The CDI (electronic ignition) in the Rotax 912/912S/914 is made by Ducati and has been reliable. There really are no alternatives, nor have they been proven necessary. Each system is powered by a separate "lighting coil" type generator on the flywheel. Timing is not adjustable by owner or electronics.

(Yes, I know, this is about Lyc/Lyclone engines, but wanted to throw this data point out)

I've been running a 912 on a test stand recently and have to say the ignition and even carbs (new) work well. Simple but effective. The Rotax techs say they see almost no ignition problems on these engines, ever. Problems with carbs much more often.

While some of the other systems are quirky (like the oiling system) they all work if proper procedures are followed. It has been an interesting experience, something between the auto and aero engine world.

1978

Race engine builder, fabricator, turbo junkie, technical writer, mad scientist since 1978 ??????????

Ross,
What happened in 1978.
Pete.

Magnetic pick-ups more reliable

rv6ejguy said:

Hall Effect triggers are far more reliable than magnetic pickups in my experience.

Click to expand...

On the contrary, the magnetic crank sensor is more reliable....less complexity. In fact the only people I know at a personal level who have had trouble with Lightspeed Ignitions have all had them with the hall effect sensor. One had his unit just drop dead. The other had oil seeping into it from the crankcase.

I spoke to a major experimental engine manufacturer recently and they confirmed what I suspected. The magnetic pick-ups are more reliable.

rv6ejguy said:

The Rotax techs say they see almost no ignition problems on these engines, ever. Problems with carbs much more often.

While some of the other systems are quirky (like the oiling system) they all work if proper procedures are followed. It has been an interesting experience, something between the auto and aero engine world.

Click to expand...

I have owned 3 different Rotax engines, and have over 650 hours flying a 912. The carbs & ignition ran flawlessly. I have never heard of a problem with the carbs. They need to be synchronized, but that is an easy annual maintenance item.

There are more Rotax engines flying that any other engine in the world.

I have 330 hours on my 2 Slick mags. Never even a hickup. Are bad landings caused by mags?

Three failures in 750 hours with Slick mags/Lasar system. The first failure was electronic, the next two failures were mechanical failure inside the Slick mag. I believe the camshaft failed in the second and third failure I had.

BTW, both pickup types in the Lightspeed system are hall effect, it is just common to call the mag hole mounted one a "hall effect", and the other one a "direct crank pickup". The one called "hall effect" has moving parts, the direct crank doesn't.

Installed a new Lycoming from Van's with 2 Slick mags on my RV6 in 2000. The first Slick failed at 280hrs, the second one at 340. When I sent one in for repair I commented to the service tech that it had only 280 hrs since new - his reply was you are lucky, we get them in here with less than 100hrs. So much for Slick magneto reliability!

The previous engine in that airplane had Bendix mags. They ran 1400hrs with no problem, changed points and condensor about half way just to be safe.

Martin Sutter
building and flying RV's since 1988

My RV-6 had two Lasar magnetos. I had to replace three mags within the first 100 hours due to manufacturing problems. This was in 2000, so I assume they have these problems resolved. IMO, the improved performance you get from the Lasar does not justify the cost of these units.

On the Rocket, I went with one mag and one Lightspeed II unit. Both have performed flawlessly in the first 120 hours of flight.

After hearing about some of the problems with the new ignition systems out there, I would go the route of one mag and a Lightspeed unit again. I get the benefits of EI, there are few moving parts to the Lighspeed unit, and I have a mag to back me up in the event of a total electrical failure. I've wired my airplane with dual electric buses, but the mag just gives me one more level of redundancy.

Dual Jeff Rose

990 hours with one failure. There is small clearance between the hall effect sensor and the crank mounted wheel. Apparently a grain of sand miraculously found it's way into the cowl, back up into this area, and finally between the wheel and pickup. The mechanical damage was evident. There are dual pickups so the second unit continued to run fine. Although it worked OK when realigned, I replaced the pickup anyway.

It was not a total failure. Partial misfire was evident on that unit on runup. Like a partial magneto failure, it was not very evident in the air when operating on both units.

Captain Avgas said:

On the contrary, the magnetic crank sensor is more reliable....less complexity. In fact the only people I know at a personal level who have had trouble with Lightspeed Ignitions have all had them with the hall effect sensor. One had his unit just drop dead. The other had oil seeping into it from the crankcase.

I spoke to a major experimental engine manufacturer recently and they confirmed what I suspected. The magnetic pick-ups are more reliable.

Click to expand...

We've been building EMSs/EIs/ FADECS for 13 years and sold over 7000. Not a single Hall sensor failure in an estimated 16 million hours and 30,000 flight hours. I beg to differ. Hall effects have no windings to frag, lower mass, easier signal processing. Looking at the multiple failures of magnetic sensors on various automotive setups, especially GM/ Electromotive and the fact that most OEs have gone to HE sensors, many others would not agree.

The aircraft dedicated systems must be using poor components or cheesy potting/mounting methods.

Geico266 said:

I have owned 3 different Rotax engines, and have over 650 hours flying a 912. The carbs & ingnition ran flawlesly. I have never heard of a problem with the carbs. They need to be syncronized, but that is an easy anual maintenence item.

There are more Rotax engines flying that any other engine in the world.

Click to expand...

My source for this information comes from Rob Seaton at Rotech Research which is a major distributor/ overhaul shop for Rotax engines. I have a pair of U/S 912 carbs here for dissection as a matter of fact.

I might add that 912S users report serious starting kickback in cold conditions and the rough low rpm idle is caused by the high fixed timing of the Ducati system. Simple and reliable but far from optimal.

What is the TBO for a Slick mag? Can I do the overhaul myself?

I would rather overhaul them now than be stuck somewhere.

I overhauled mine!

But first, I have a friend who is an A&P that gave me a wonderful course in mags. Put new points in, checked all the bearings, set the internal timing, etc.

Now mag checks drop around 50 rpm or so. Honestly, I really think they are bettern than when they came brand new.

I think that Slicks are supposed to be overhauled, checked, or whatever at around 500 hours. That is when I did mine. Unfortunately, you really can't find anyone to overhaul them. Iseem to remember that Slick with sell you some new ones at a reduced price if you send the old ones in.

Wes Hays
RV-6A 740+ hrs
RV-7A - finishing up the wings
Winters, TX

LSI

320+ hours on a Lightspeed Plasma II, accessory case Hall Effect sensor with no problems. (Slick mag backup) This is on a Airflow Performance Fuel Injected Aerosport IO-320-D1A with 9.2/1 pistons. LSI and Aerosport rock!
As Dan stated, the fuel economy on this type of system is impressive to say the least.

Lightspeed refers to the accessory case mounted sensor as the 'Hall Effect Module' or the flywheel triggered 'Direct Crank Sensor'.

Martin Sutter said:

Installed a new Lycoming from Van's with 2 Slick mags on my RV6 in 2000. The first Slick failed at 280hrs, the second one at 340. When I sent one in for repair I commented to the service tech that it had only 280 hrs since new - his reply was you are lucky, we get them in here with less than 100hrs. So much for Slick magneto reliability!

The previous engine in that airplane had Bendix mags. They ran 1400hrs with no problem, changed points and condensor about half way just to be safe.

Martin Sutter
building and flying RV's since 1988

Click to expand...

FWIW, I have 1200 hours on a Slick 4371. No problems whatsoever (other than...ugh...it's a mag). I do 500-hour inspections on it, and I changed the points at the 2nd inspection for warm fuzzies. Maybe I've been lucky. Or maybe Slicks aren't as bad as you implied.

I have one slick and one Jeff Rose electroair ignition. This setup has run great for 550 hours. The only problems I have had with the electroair is the plug wire terminations. They used to use a combination of a rubber gasket and brass nut that would eventually fail and not hold the wire tightly in the plug.

This situation has since been fixed by the new owners of electroair and a new set of plug wires I got from them work perfectly now. They have a very similar end to what the slick harness setup uses.

akarmy said:

I have one slick and one Jeff Rose electroair ignition. This setup has run great for 550 hours. The only problems I have had with the electroair is the plug wire terminations. They used to use a combination of a rubber gasket and brass nut that would eventually fail and not hold the wire tightly in the plug.

This situation has since been fixed by the new owners of electroair and a new set of plug wires I got from them work perfectly now. They have a very similar end to what the slick harness setup uses.

Click to expand...

Hey Andy,

You should feel good about the Jeff Rose ignition, it's actually an electromotive unit: http://www.directignition.com/index.html I have run their Tec3 ECM on one of my race cars for over 3 years now under some extreme conditions, it has always worked very well.

Mark - RV-7 -N234C
Flying (sort of)

In response to Dan's comment I would like to say I agree with him in that there are a lot of Slick mags out there that have been running reliably for a long time. My post was only to point out that you can get a problem component even if it is certified and used in large numbers. I think the same may be true for some of the experimental electronic ignitions, namely that most units out there work well but there are some that have failed.

The failure modes of electronic ignitions are different from magnetos and we have to gain experience with them to recognize their weak points. With mags these are well known from experience and we have learned to recognize them as they develop. With the diffeent E.I's it will take a while until we have the same familiarity with their soft spots.

Martin Sutter
building and flying RV's since 1988

I have a Bendix mag and an Electroair ignition. The Hall effect sensor failed after about 70 hours. Fantastic customer support from these guys. They overnighted me a new sensor and I was flying again in about 16 hours. I would recommend installing the display for the timing advance. Its about the size of a postage stamp, and can clue you in if the system is starting to malfunction.

Electronic Ignitions Issues

First hello to Martin who I met when living in Texas.

I apologize for perhaps this long posting but some people may find it of interest.

Here is my experience with electronic ignitions. I have a Jeff Rose Electroair system as well as a Slick Magneto on my O360 RV6A. I had the magneto OH at 500 hours as the Rocky Mountain Engine monitor was showing inconsistent RPM readings as it uses the Magneto P lead to produce the signal for the RPM indication. I had the system wired so that when I did the run up and turned the Mag OFF it used the Electroair system to produce the RPM signal. In this way during normal operation the magneto is providing the RPM signal.

One day I was cruising along at 8 or 9 thousand feet and for some reason decided to do a Mag Check. When I turned the Mag OFF and was running only on the Electroair system the whole plane started to shake violently. When I did the check with the Electroair OFF and the Mag ON things ran smoothly. There was obviously a problem on the Electro air side of the ignition system. After I landed I tried the ignition system and everything seemed normal.

I however decided to clean the plugs which I have to admit had 700 hours on them as they were new when I first flew the plane. I had checked and cleaned the plugs at each 30 to 50 hour inspection when I changed the oil (every 6 months). As the plugs looked OK and everything seemed fine on the ground when I did a Mag check I had not seen fit to replace the plugs with new ones.

Any way on a subsequent flight at 7500 feet I did another Mag check and found the problem persisted again on the side of the Electronic ignition. As I have a switch to select the CHT and EGT of each cylinder I did a very quick check while the whole plane was shaking. The problem seemed to be associated with cylinder no 4. When we landed I replaced on the Electroair side the plug in no. 4 cylinder with a new one.

The next flight I again I did a Mag check and things were much better however there was some slight shaking of the engine. By this time I was getting a little upset with the whole business so at the end of the flight I changed out all the plugs as I had read somewhere that plugs normally need replacing at about 500 hours.

With new plugs things are as they say in Texas ?fine and dandy?

So what does this all mean.

It seems that electronic ignitions systems as they produce higher voltages than magnetos will find problems with plugs or even wiring sooner than a magneto as any leakage etc will cause arcing and loss of a correct spark.

Also one should occasionally do a Mag check at altitude to see if things are running correctly. Just because a Mag check on the ground is OK does not mean it is OK in the air.

If at all possible when cleaning the plugs try and find someone who has the equipment to do a bomb test (high voltage test) on the plugs to see if they are OK under normal operation.

I am sorry for this long posting but it is just my 125 cents worth (value for money)!

Barry RV6A F-PRVM

It would be interesting to find out what PN of Hall Effect transistor LSE uses and is this embedded inside the engine? These units have temp specs which must be adhered to for reliability. Our Aviation units use a higher temp transistor and we mount them externally to limit high temp exposure. This is about the only thing that will kill a HE sensor other than broken wires (poor strain relief) or magnets slicing through the sensor itself (improper mounting).

From the pix on their website It looks as though their HE sensors are just soldered to a through hole PCB mount, exposed to the elements (like rain). The leads would also be subject to high vibration unless the HE sensors are actually cemented to the PCB. Epoxy encapsulated sensors elements are environmentally sealed and much more resistant to vibration.

zav6a said:

990 hours with one failure. There is small clearance between the hall effect sensor and the crank mounted wheel. Apparently a grain of sand miraculously found it's way into the cowl, back up into this area, and finally between the wheel and pickup. The mechanical damage was evident. There are dual pickups so the second unit continued to run fine. Although it worked OK when realigned, I replaced the pickup anyway.

It was not a total failure. Partial misfire was evident on that unit on runup. Like a partial magneto failure, it was not very evident in the air when operating on both units.

Click to expand...

To my knowledge, ElectroAir/ Electromotive units use magnetic sensors, not Hall Effect as standard crank triggering. These have not proven particularly reliable in automotive use. I have talked to a least half a dozen people over the last 5 years alone with these units who have had these failures and we don't even sell them.

So that everyone is on the same page here, Hall Effect sensors are sensitive to a magnetic field of a certain polarity, usually provided by a flying permanent magnet. The result is a clean square wave signal which is ideal for digital processing. The Hall sensor will work at near zero rpm.

Magnetic pickups usually have a fixed permanent magnet surrounded by a coil of wire. As a ferrous, moving reluctor swings past, it induces current in the windings providing a sine wave with a spike embedded. Signal conditioning is required to reduce the very high voltage output at high rpm and correct drift. Magnetic sensors also do not work at very low rpms so a lame battery or starter may mean you are not going to get started.

Hall v Mag

Thanks Ross. Good tutorial.

Mag Pickup Reliability

I keep an extra pickup (pretty cheap, light and small) in my seat back pocket. Have not had another failure but got the impression when I bought the first one that it was not a one in a million event.

The voltage in the spark plug leads only rises to the amount necessary to jump the plug gap for the charge density within the cylinder. At high MAP, much more voltage is required than at low throttle settings. Once the gap is ionized and current is flowing, the amount of voltage required to maintain the spark current is considerably less. So if it only takes 10,000V to bridge the gap, it doesn't matter that your ignition can put out 50,000V! As long as the system puts out a sufficient voltage to provide breakdown based on charge density and spark plug gap, it will do the job. But over time, the plug gap grows, which means more voltage is required. Sometimes the plug wires of EI's will have minute holes in them, and when the voltage within the wires is high enough to jump through the hole to some metallic part, there goes your cylinder's ignition. The same can happen on shielded leads, but usually it is more likely to happen from contamination around the "cigarette" in the plug. Always wash these with a degreaser and don't touch them; your skin oil can be the breakdown source! These breakdowns usually occur at full throttle at low altitude, or at altitude where the air's dielectric factor is lower, allowing the spark to jump more easily. Once this problem begins to happen, the hole or contamination will become more conductive, allowing breakdown at lower power settings. Doing a full throttle run-up at night with the cowling open will often show this problem; you can see the discharge. It's very important on EIs, especially, with their un-shielded leads, to use standoffs on the HV wires to keep plenty of distance between them and the engine to minimize arcing. 1/4" minimum! At 50,000V/inch air dielectric at sea-level, this provides an additional 12,500V isolation.

P-mag

Have one P-Mag and one slick mag on my engine. I'm now (Sunday) in a hotel in Wells, Nevada (nice little food stop along the freeway) and waiting to call Brad at e-mag tomorrow.

On the second leg of a x-country, the engine started to run roughly. Went through some quick checks and adjustments, and it continued to run roughly. I noticed the #2 CHT was 430 and the rest were 280 or so. Flipped the mag switch to the right (to disable the p-mag on the left side) and the engine instantly ran smoothly and the CHT came down. Back to both, and it ran roughly again. Back to R and landed at the nearest airport KLWL (40 miles away!).

Shut everything off on the ground. Then restarted. Same problem - engine quit during the left mag check.

Symptoms were similar to the ones that ended up in a forced landing on a mountain road (was that Marc too?). So, fortunately, I had thought through this scenario because of that event and -not ever expecting it to happen - was prepared for it.

Anyway, hoping Brad will be able to get a part out by Tues to continue the trip.

MCA said:

Have one P-Mag and one slick mag on my engine. I'm now (Sunday) in a hotel in Wells, Nevada (nice little food stop along the freeway) and waiting to call Brad at e-mag tomorrow.

Anyway, hoping Brad will be able to get a part out by Tues to continue the trip.

Click to expand...

Marc,

If there is anything I can do to help let me know. I have a spare slick mag available if you want to use it until the P-mag issue is fixed.

The issue on the other Marks emag I think was that the timing software was getting confused under certain conditions. A temporary fix that was talked about was to time the P-mag mechanically instead of blowing in the tube to set an artificial timing point. If it was mechanically timed, the software bug wouldnt affect the timing. That is something you might try if you originally set your timing by blowing in the tube instead of mechanically timing it.

My cell is 623-261-2906.

Mark, If there's any way I can help, say the word.

Out of curiosity, did you set the timing with the blow or physical timing method?
I'm convinced the physical method works better than the blow method, at
least for now.

Timing

Thanks for the offers to help!

I did the blow method, and am going to talk with Brad in detail about the two methods to better understand the differences.

Just hypothesizing here, but if the timing shifted for some reason, you'd think that all the cylinders would be affected. But only my #2 cylinder CHT went way up. Plus, turning off power on the ground didn't fix the issue (cycling power in the air doesn't do anything because it generates its own power). So at this point I'm tending to believe it's a broader failure.

Pretty sure if you use the physical method of timing the unit, ie: rotating
the pmag until the led light turns green then it should be fine. This is very
very similar to the issue I had. Only takes a wrench or two. Might be worth
it.

Put the p-mag into setup mode.
Pull the p-mag so it's just out of the case. Turn the gear (slowly) until the
light turns green. Slowly and carefully re-insert it keeping the led green.
Once in the case, reinstall bolts and tighten till you can just barely turn
the pmag. Turn it till it turns green again if it has turned red during re-insertion,
then tighten. Done. Time for a runup check.

Another test, after you tried the above: pull the MP line and leave it
disconnected. Do a runup check.

Walter - Im skeptical that there is any difference at all between timing that has been set using the blow method and timing set using the physical method. Can you explain why you think this is the case? Any confirmation on this from the folks at e-mag air? If there really is a difference this is important information to know.

thanks

erich weaver

Ref. emag's service bulletin. There was/is a software issue with the logic used in the blow method.

erich weaver said:

Walter - Im skeptical that there is any difference at all between timing that has been set using the blow method and timing set using the physical method. Can you explain why you think this is the case? Any confirmation on this from the folks at e-mag air? If there really is a difference this is important information to know.

thanks

erich weaver

Click to expand...

The service bulletin applies to units that were upgraded during a certain period of time, and should be considered mandatory according to Emagair. Not ALL units with the blow-into-the tube timing capability have this issue - only onces that were upgraded during a certain time period. It is very easy to see if the SB is applicable to you. If you can reset your timing by sucking instead of blowing into the tube, it applies to you. After the upgrade, you still have the capability of timing using the blow method - it just removes the potential for the timing to be reset by a vacuum instead of a positive pressure being applied.

For the above reasons, this issue does not address the core subject of my previous post - which is whether there really is any difference between timing set by the blow method and timing set mechanically. To get over the hump, lets just assume my question is for those that werent affected by the SB or that have already had it addressed. Is there really any difference in the reliability of your timing based on what method you used now? Im having a hard time believing there is, but if it does exist, the folks at Emagair should sure know about it.

Walter, anything you can share with us on this, or is this more of just a hunch on your part? Im really not out to
flame anyone, just trying to get out any information thats available and make sure I know whats going on as much as possible.

best regards

erich weaver

erich weaver said:

Walter, anything you can share with us on this, or is this more of just a hunch on your part? Im really not out to
flame anyone, just trying to get out any information thats available and make sure I know whats going on as much as possible.

Click to expand...

Let me just state up front that I've been very happy with Brad at Emagair.
Customer Support is very good.

I was an early adopter of the product. It had it's share of issues.
After those issues were resolved my dual p-mag setup worked fine.
Not a single issue.

Later, during some down time I elected to send them in for the blow firmware
upgrade. They've been back at least twice since then. The latest
p-mags that I have won't time themselves with the blow in the tube
method. But they will with the physical turning method. They run fine
and I have not had any issues with them.

Someday, I will send them back for another upgrade to fix the blow
method. Once all issues have been fixed and I don't see anyone having
any problems.

I have noticed that practically all of the folks who have contacted me
with regards to timing issues that mysteriously change, causing rough
running engines have timed their engines with the blow method. That's
been my experience. I don't know if they've fixed this issue or not, I
really haven't paid that much attention to it. They're so easy to time
with the physical method that the blow method is not a top priority for me.

Diagnostics

After a nice breakfast in the casino, the pit boss drove me out to the airport for further troubleshooting. There was absolutely no one around and it started to rain a bit, so I pulled the plane into an old hangar.

Brad suggested I check the timing in setup mode. The LED stayed red through TDC, meaning the timing was incorrect. He then suggted looking at the LED when in run mode. Normally, the LED turns off. In my case, the LED was yellow, which Brad said meant the shaft and the sensor were misaligned somehow. It's a relatively new diagnostic feature they put in, and while it was a bad sign, it was good to know the problem was found.

Brad is sending a new unit out and it should arrive tomorrow afternoon. According to UPS and Fedex, this is a "remote" area and packages don't arrive until later in the day. Time to get caught up on work stuff.

On the lighter side, as I was working away, the guy in the other hangar taxied in (V tail Bonanza) and loaned me some tools and his extra pickup truck. That was really nice of him! Fortunately, P-mags are rock simple to install and it should fairly straighforward.

MCA said:

... LED when in run mode. Normally, the LED turns off. In my case, the LED was yellow, which Brad said meant the shaft and the sensor were misaligned somehow.

Click to expand...

Marc,

Thanks for sharing the update. I'm curious how and why this failure mode occurs?

P-mag running

dan said:

I'm curious how and why this failure mode occurs?

Click to expand...

Got the new mag in on Tuesday and all seems to be running well. The old mag showed no obvious signs of failure from the outside, but once I send it in and hear back from e-mag, I'll let you know their diagnosis.

Went through the same thought process and here is what I did.

I have dual P-MAGS on a XP-360. Setting the timing was a sinch. I have cockpit selectable timing currently set for 25/34 degrees. I use 34 degrees for pure 100LL and 25 degrees for any mixture of 100LL and auto fuel. I generally use 25 degrees on hot days to keep the CHT cooler.

Yes, I have an all electric airplane and early on had a alternator runaway (due to an improperly grounded warning light) on my electrical system and I elected without hesitation to shut down the entire electrical system. Both P-MAGS worked as advertised. I test the self generating portion of the ignitions as part of the "Mag" check.

There is no kick back with these ignitions since they are gear driven like the old mags. This keeps your the Sky-Tec starter will under warranty.

I am very happy with the ignitions so far and especially impressed with Brad and his crew in Texas.

selectable advance?

How do you set the Pmags up to select between 25 and 34 deg?...I realy want to do the same....At least when Mogas cost less than 100LL I do!

Frank..7a

SFB

Do you see cooler temps on Climbout when running the advance at 25 vs 34 deg? I am running 39 right now and can get hot cHT's on climbout if I am not careful.

Pete, are you saying that you are running at 39 degrees before TDC at high power settings? If so, I think that's WAY too advanced and will certainly cause high CHT's, if not much worse.

Joey, 39 deg only at lower MP

The P-mags (like all EIs) have an advance map that controls advance. It only applies the timing advance at lower MP and at certain RPM ranges. It will have little to no advance at full power and goes to higher advance at lower MP and RPM. With the Pmags - the curves can be adjusted by the user using a laptop within certain ranges.